Replies

TK, if I say I understand what you are getting at, since yours is a known point of view, I ask that you consider mine (not to agree with it.)

When I argue from the LE point of view, the real issues re drugs are focused on enforcement. (LE does other things, like talk to kids at school, etc.)

I hope you can agree, for discussion's sake, at least, that enforcement of drug laws is important, given the damage that is done to the country (don't argue with this, pls. It's already carved in stone. 8-) )

If police were given every possible tool and unrestricted ability to search for and seize drugs, they still wouldn't get them all. By far, far, far. But it is LE's responsibility to keep at the frustrating drug situation, and they just do their best with the resources they have.

The forfeiture side of drug enforcement is important. It enables LE agencies to acquire new and often expensive tools to fight the drug war, such as trained sniffer dogs.

Also, drug forfeiture money goes only to drug enforcement agencies, including local PDs, prosecutors, etc. Police Chiefs, for example, get nothing. His captain in charge of the drug squad gets the money, most of which is already committed to specified drug enforcement needs. It's carefully controlled, after lots of looseness at the beginning.

And the laws on forfeiture have changed over the years. Used to be that LE agencies could keep some seized cars, the ones they wanted, to be used as official vehicles. The head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (before DEA) in SF drove a big pink Thunderbird, which was seized from a drug dealer. You report observing similar things in your area, but I kind of think that the forfeiture law now has tighter limits on forfeitures than in past years.

My point is that LE just folds the forfeiture money into the WoD. Seems logical that a prosecutor might have one of those forfeited cars, for official business.

But I think it's an error to conclude that LE's motive for concentrating on the WoD is closely tied to the desire to acquire funds. There is a very clear mandate to LE, in statute form, that sets out the mission. Forfeiture was instituted as a way to utilize the seized assets that resulted from the enforcement efforts. I feel like defining forfeiture as the reason behind the LE WoD is like the old "tail wagging the dog" idea.

Forfeiture certainly had nothing to do with the arrest which was the basis of this thread.

Most pro drug dealers use rental cars to conduct drug business. The gov't doesn't seize rental cars, because such a forfeiture has no impact on drug enforcement, only on the innocent rental agency. That only gives limited protection to the dealer, however, because when he's caught, his assets are analyzed for purposes of forfeiture, and anything he can't document as having been a legitimate purchase with clean money is subject to forfeiture anyway.

I don't think you can point your finger at LE for what you think is wrong in all this WoD stuff. (Not that you are.) The laws are on the books. That's where your focus should be if you want changes.

LE just keeps pluggin' along, working hard. LE can't change anything re its responsibilities to the WoD.

Lastly, you are right about dogs sniffing one or a related group of specific things. LE lost many dog cases in the beginning, for the very reason that they were often used for many purposes....drugs, tracking, etc. This caused the dogs to make many false hits, which resulted in cases that got tossed out of court on unreliability issues.

LE adapted by keeping records on dog performances, and found out that the dogs needed to be specialized to basically one area of sniffing expertise in order to validate the dog's capabilities to make accurate and reliable hits.

And that has happened, and a routine part of a dog-generated drug case trial is the court presentation showing the dog's hit reliability is sufficient to validate his discovery of the drugs.

I live in Hawaii, which has tight agricultural controls over fruit (and other things). Incoming passengers are notitified of the regulation against bringing in fruit, but some forget they have some, some try to slide it through, etc. There is a small beagle, wearing a knit vest, which sits at the bottom of the escalator leading to the baggage claim area. The dog just calmly walks around the passengers as they come off the escalator, and sits down when he smells fruit. An inspector meets the passenger and looks in the carry-on bag, and seizes the fruit. There's no other penalty (there could be, in aggravated circumstances). That dog is uncanny.

The dog just calmly walks around the passengers as they come off the escalator, and sits down when he smells fruit. An inspector meets the passenger and looks in the carry-on bag, and seizes the fruit. There's no other penalty (there could be, in aggravated circumstances). That dog is uncanny.

Since many of the passengers are carrying fruit, you could get the same "uncanny" result with a Ouija board.

LE just keeps pluggin' along, working hard. LE can't change anything re its responsibilities to the WoD.

It can, and does: LE focus on busts that bring in property, and more cops are corrupt. Bend cops and pols were one reason why Prohibition was a bad idea. We have the same problems now.

I hope you can agree, for discussion's sake, at least, that enforcement of drug laws is important, given the damage that is done to the country (don't argue with this, pls. It's already carved in stone. 8-) )

This is not carved in stone and the opposite is probably true - the enforcement of drugs laws probably does more harm to this country than it helps. he forfeiture side of drug enforcement is important. It enables LE agencies to acquire new and often expensive tools to fight the drug war

In other words, it enables LE to buy more toys so they can pretend that they're Rambo.

"I hope you can agree, for discussion's sake, at least, that enforcement of drug laws is important, given the damage that is done to the country (don't argue with this, pls. It's already carved in stone. 8-) )"

I agree that drugs cause a lot of problems, but I do not think our current policies do much to alleviate these problems if anything. To the contrary, I think in many ways we are causing more problems than we solve. But I think that for the most part those enforcing drug laws believe in what they are doing. Their hearts for the most part are in the right place.

"But it is LE's responsibility to keep at the frustrating drug situation, and they just do their best with the resources they have."

It is their duty.

"The forfeiture side of drug enforcement is important. It enables LE agencies to acquire new and often expensive tools to fight the drug war, such as trained sniffer dogs."

I wish we'd spend the money on things like drug treatment or other things that might actually be helpful rather than letting the police keep what they kill and thereby encouraging predatory practices. They could still get their drug dogs and that sort of thing out of their budgets.

"Also, drug forfeiture money goes only to drug enforcement agencies, including local PDs, prosecutors, etc. Police Chiefs, for example, get nothing. His captain in charge of the drug squad gets the money, most of which is already committed to specified drug enforcement needs. It's carefully controlled, after lots of looseness at the beginning."

I don't know where you are getting your information. Perhaps this is the way it works where you live but I assure you it is not the way it works in my state. I am very familiar with our asset forfeiture laws regarding disposition of seized assets. Ours are very broad and there is very little oversight over these funds. The money is not "carefully controlled." The prosecutors or law enforcement agencies in charge of these funds do pretty much whatever they want with the money as long as they can somehow claim the money was used for law enforcement or prosecutorial purposes. Here at least, the money is divided among the prosecutor and whichever law enforcement agencies assist in the busts. The head prosecutor, sheriff, police chief, or whoever is running the drug task force or other law enforcement agency that gets a cut decides what to do with the money.

"And the laws on forfeiture have changed over the years. Used to be that LE agencies could keep some seized cars, the ones they wanted, to be used as official vehicles. The head of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (before DEA) in SF drove a big pink Thunderbird, which was seized from a drug dealer. You report observing similar things in your area, but I kind of think that the forfeiture law now has tighter limits on forfeitures than in past years."

Each one of the prosecutors in our county drives a seized vehicle or one paid for from asset forfeiture funds. These are like "company cars" that they also drive home. I know for certain. They've told me this is the case and I know at least one of them is driving one of my former clients vehicles. I'm not sure, but I think they even get some sort of fuel allowance paid for from the drug funds. I know some of the guys from the sheriff's department at least used to be driving seized vehicles, and the former head of our juvenile department who is married to a detective was also driving a seized vehicle up until she left and took another job. I know for a fact the prosecutors also all have memberships to the gym paid for by drug funds and that each have a cell phone paid for out of these funds. These funds also pay for their continuing legal education trips to exotic places and for countless other things like the TV's and cable each one has in their offices, their very nice furnishings and on and on and on. I'm in their office all the time and while they don't tell me everything about where all the money goes it's no secret that it makes their lives a whole lot easier than it is for those of us down the street in the public defender office.

And I am not saying that our prosecutors are pocketing any of this money although I believe that sort of thing sometimes goes on in other counties. I hear rumors about it and some are from reliable enough sources that I tend to believe them. When I was in private practice working in another county I worked with a bunch of folks who had all worked in the office of a prominent criminal defense attorney who was notorious for being able to bribe anyone who could be bribed. My secretary and others in the office recounted stories to me like one where she had received a call from a Mexican drug dealer client who left word for the prominent attorney to meet him at a designated place at a designated time. The attorney left to meet the man and returned with a grocery sack full of money which she was instructed to count and bundle in stacks of equal amounts. She complied, put the money back in the sack and handed over to the attorney. The head prosecutor from that county came up the back stair case a few minutes later, went into the attorney's office and left a few minutes later carrying the grocery sack. That day charges were nolle prossed in a case against a woman caught with several hundred pounds of marijuana, who incidentally, had her fee to this attorney paid for by the Mexican drug dealer who paid over the grocery sack full of money. This is just one of many stories I heard about this particular prosecutor who when voted out of office took a 51% interest in the firm of the attorney who gave him the grocery sack full of cash, and some of these stories came from people I knew well and trusted.

I don't think that kind of thing is going on where I work now but I have no doubt that asset forfeitures make a difference in plea negotiations. For instance, I was in court just a while back and I watched a guy plead to possession of dozens of kilos of cocaine with intent to deliver. They hadn't seized any cash in the bust, but the prosecutor announced at the plea that $25,000 was going to be forfeited pursuant to the agreement. The guy went to prison, but he got a better deal than most and I believe charges were dropped against others in the vehicle, which rarely happens here. Did something fishy go on? Did he get a better deal because he came up with $25,000 to forfeit? I don't know, but why the heck else did he come up with $25,000 to forfeit over to be split by law enforcement and the prosecutor's office? Surely he was getting something in return.

Being a public defender, my clients generally don't have big bucks to offer to prosecutors in exchange for better deals. But often I'm able to seal a deal by having my client agree not to contest a forfeiture. Sometimes it's for a vehicle, or maybe just the money from the paycheck he can prove that he just cashed. In some cases there are no real grounds to forfeit the assets but knowing most of my clients don't have the funds or the wherewithal to contest a forfeiture I'll see if I can get the prosecutors to budge a little in the negotiations in exchange for my client signing a consent order allowing the forfeiture to go through without contest. It makes a difference for them and the more money people have to forfeit the more difference it can make.

"But I think it's an error to conclude that LE's motive for concentrating on the WoD is closely tied to the desire to acquire funds."

You are naive. I'm in the trenches of the drug war. I see with my own eyes what is going on. Our office handles thousands of pounds worth of drug cases every year, everything from the simple possession and small time dealer cases, on up to drug mule cases where our clients are caught with over a thousand pounds of pot or hundred of pounds of coke or meth. We have thousands of pounds worth of active cases right now. We handle about 80% of all the criminal cases in our county and at least one of us is almost always in court when private attorneys plead their clients. We see what's going on with our clients. We see what goes on in court. We're in a small town in a small county dealing with law enforcement, the prosecutors, private attorneys, and the people working in and around the courthouse everyday and there isn't a whole lot that goes on around here in this business we don't know about. At least where I live, asset forfeitures are a huge factor in the efforts the locals make in the WoD.

"Forfeiture certainly had nothing to do with the arrest which was the basis of this thread."

I don't know about that. Just because they didn't seize money doesn't mean they weren't out there in force looking for it. And if it's anything like it is here up there you can bet they seized the vehicle if the driver owned it, and a hefty cash forfeiture would have helped him get a better deal if he could come up with the money somewhere.

Now, it's not all about the money. They also love the recognition and the pats on the back. They get to lay out all the bundles and stand there proudly for the TV cameras and the photographers from the newspaper. I always get a kick out of those pictures, like the ones where they bust a guy in his house with a pound of weed and lay it all out on a table with all of his hunting rifles and whatever cash they find. They stand there like they are getting their picture taken with a twelve point buck tied to the hood of their pickup truck.

"Most pro drug dealers use rental cars to conduct drug business."

I don't know about "most," but a lot of the drug mules anyway do drive rental cars. I don't think this is done so much to protect assets as it is done out of the fact that they don't have anything else to drive. It's kind of like the guys with the "mobile meth labs" and the labs set up in motels. The paper will make a big deal out of how sophisticated these people are now but in my experience most of these guys don't have a pot to pee in and the only reason they are doing something stupid like cook dope in a motel room is because they don't have their own place with utilities turned on to cook the stuff. Our office is appointed to represent at least nine out of ten of the drug mules arrested here because most of these guys don't have any money. A lot of them never even make bond. They get offered a few grand to haul a load of pot or whatever across the country and they use whatever means they can get to get the drugs from point "A" to point "B." It's not like using a rental car is a good idea. The cops are looking for rental cars. It's like I told a lady today who is getting ready to plead on one of these cases after being pulled over for a bogus reason with a few pounds of pot. If you have California, Arizona, or New Mexico tags, that's a red flag to the police. If you are a minority they are really going to be looking for a reason to pull you over. Rental cars are another red flag and if you are a minority driving a rental car with California tags you might as well spray paint "bust me I'm carrying drugs" on the back of your car because some yahoo is going to pull you over anyway even if he has to make up a reason for the stop.

"I don't think you can point your finger at LE for what you think is wrong in all this WoD stuff."

I agree. They are just doing their jobs and I know some stand up guys who work in law enforcement or as prosecutors. It may sound like I'm anti-police, but that really isn't the case. I'm more frustrated by the laws and the way the system is set up that encourages abuses and outright corruption and creates and us against them dynamic between law enforcement and large segments of our population. I'm frustrated with the way Constitutional protections are being lost forever in the name of the WoD. I'm frustrated by the unfair results I see. I'm frustrated by the few bad cops and prosecutors who abuse the system, violate the Constitution, and screw innocent people. I don't even like it when they kick the not so innocent while they're down and basically steal their money and punish them more than they deserve. And I don't like it when they lie even if the guy is dead guilty because someday they're going to be wrong and lie to convict someone who happens to be innocent.

"And that has happened, and a routine part of a dog-generated drug case trial is the court presentation showing the dog's hit reliability is sufficient to validate his discovery of the drugs."

That's not the routine here. We can't get anything out of these guys about how reliable their dogs are and so far we haven't gotten a judge to toss a case yet on that issue. These guys basically get away with testifying that they could tell the dog alerted by the expression on the dog's face. As for accuracy they'll just say the dog is right more often than not and that satisfies the judge. Judges, being prosecutors in black robes for the most part, don't care if cops make up probable cause as long as the cop will say enough to keep the judge from being overturned on appeal, and the cops are well trained on exactly what they have to say to make a bust stick. Every once in a blue moon we'll catch one of these guys lying through his teeth about something and the judge will have to toss a case, but the next time that same cop testifies at a suppression hearing the judge will find his testimony credible no matter how fishy it is. If he says the dog smiled and winked at him and through his years of training and experience he knew that to be a signal from the dog that the car contained three hundred twelve and a half pounds of pot the judge is going to say "motion to suppress denied."

"I live in Hawaii, which has tight agricultural controls over fruit (and other things). Incoming passengers are notitified of the regulation against bringing in fruit, but some forget they have some, some try to slide it through, etc. There is a small beagle, wearing a knit vest, which sits at the bottom of the escalator leading to the baggage claim area. The dog just calmly walks around the passengers as they come off the escalator, and sits down when he smells fruit. An inspector meets the passenger and looks in the carry-on bag, and seizes the fruit. There's no other penalty (there could be, in aggravated circumstances). That dog is uncanny."

The difference between this and the dogs working the highway is that this nice little dog is searching everyone. The dogs are used on an awful lot of people on the highway too, but they aren't searching anywhere close to everyone. What is really going on a good bit of the time is that they are stopping and searching people based on whether or not they are from certain states, their race, and that sort of thing. They're looking for people who look like they might be carrying drugs and they're focusing

You can't feel too sorry for people who get busted this way. They were breaking the law and they got caught. If the cop was cheating no one is really going to care. The thing is though that for every bust there are countless innocent people who are searched and harassed and treated like common criminals because the cops didn't like the way they looked. We're going to see more and more of that as time goes on and the 4th Amendment loses meaning in this country. And while now only a minority of the people are feeling the heat from law enforcement, give it time, they'll expand their horizons and more and more of us will fit into the class of people law enforcement find inherently suspicious.